Annex 1: Government responses to our recommendations in the 2015 Parliament
Of the 21 reports we have published in this Parliament, 8 have received Government responses (with the remaining 13 either of a type that does not typically receive a formal Government response, such as those on public appointments or Sentencing Council guidelines, or having been published more recently than two months ago). These eight reports contain 65 specific recommendations to the Government, which are arranged in tables below as ‘implemented’, ‘accepted but not yet implemented’, or ‘not accepted’. We hope that making this analysis available will assist our successors, and the wider public, in understanding where the Government stands in relation to what we have asked of it.
Box 1: Government responses to our recommendations in the 2015 Parliament: methodology
|
1. ‘Recommendations’ are passages in select committee reports seeking specific action by the Government: they are typically printed in bold italics. 2. This annex includes only recommendations from reports to which the Government has responded (and therefore excludes those from reports to which the Government does not generally respond, such as those on Sentencing Council guidelines, or to which a response is awaited but has not yet been made). 3. Recommendations are here categorised as ‘implemented’, ‘accepted but not yet implemented’, or ‘not accepted’:
|
Table 1: Recommendations implemented
|
Report |
Recommendation |
Notes |
|
Criminal courts charge |
We would not mourn the early abolition of the criminal courts charge and we recommend that legislation to effect that repeal should be brought forward. Pending any such repeal a similar effect could be achieved by the Lord Chancellor replacing the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Criminal Courts Charge) Regulations 2015 with new regulations setting out radically reduced levels of charge applicable to each type of case. If the Government decides to abolish the charge, we consider it should report to the House on the implications of abolition for the public finances.1 |
The Government abolished the charge.2 |
|
Should the Government be unwilling to present the House with proposals to abolish or radically reduce the levels of the criminal courts charge, we recommend, as an irreducible minimum, that a double discretion should be accorded to sentencers, first, to decide whether to impose a criminal courts charge and then, secondly, to decide upon the amount of the charge in accordance with the circumstances of individual cases. Such a change would resolve all the problems which have arisen with the operation of the charge, with the exception of making a dent in the revenues expected to accrue from the charge, assuming of course that those expectations are met, which appears on the evidence we have received to be extremely unlikely. Given the statutory entrenchment of the charge already referred to, it seems to us that the introduction of double discretion for sentencers will also require primary legislation to amend the provisions governing the charge in Part 2A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. In the event that the Government is unwilling to contemplate abolition of the charge, we recommend that legislation to enable sentencers to exercise a double discretion in relation to the charge be brought forward urgently.3 |
||
|
Appointment of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and HM Chief Inspector of Probation |
We recommend that within three months of taking up post Ms Stacey bring forward a strategy for the Inspectorate during the period of her tenure as Chief Inspector, and we would wish to hold an evidence session with her following production of that strategy to discuss its implementation.4 |
Dame Glenys Stacey discussed her strategy in oral evidence to us on 5 July 2016,5 and the HM Inspectorate of Probation Corporate Plan 2016–19 was published in August 2016.6 |
|
Criminal justice inspectorates |
We recommend that the Ministry undertake wider consultation of stakeholders on a draft protocol.7 |
The Government accepted this in its Response; 8 this consultation has taken place.9 |
|
However we emphasise the need for a protocol to be in place well before the end of the first year of Mr Clarke’s term of office. In that context we see no strong case for the development of a protocol to be delayed to await the outcome of the Cabinet Office review of arm’s length bodies. We recommend that the protocol eventually put in place for HM Inspectorate of Prisons should be used as the blueprint for equivalent protocols for HM Inspectorate of Probation and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, which should be developed in parallel. We also recommend that the Attorney General consider the introduction of a similar protocol for HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate.10 |
The protocol between HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the Ministry of Justice has been agreed (albeit later than the Committee recommended).11 The Government’s response included commitments to creating the other three protocols, using that for HM Inspectorate of Prisons as a ‘guide and check point’,12 but these have not yet been established. |
|
|
Prison safety |
We recommend that the Ministry and NOMS together produce an action plan for improving prison safety, addressing the factors underlying the rises in violence, self-harm and suicide. The plan should include both preventative measures and punitive ones, and should provide objectives, accompanied by indices to assess the impact these are having. It should encompass action NOMS is taking with regard to recruitment and retention of prison staff, the implications of the Secretary of State’s review of benchmarking, and should also address the apparent lack of observance of professional standards by some officers through the Corruption Prevention Strategy, the development of which we welcome.13 |
The Government has published a white paper, Prison Safety and Reform.14 |
|
To assist us in examining the impact of this action plan we wish to receive quarterly reports over the remainder of this Parliament with timely data from the Ministry and NOMS, shortly after the publication of the quarterly Safety in Custody statistics, reporting on progress against the plan and including other key indicators of prison disorder not currently included in those statistics. In addition, NOMS’ annual production of prison performance ratings, the next of which are not due until July 2016, do not enable us to scrutinise the performance of prisons in a timely manner. We wish to be apprised of these quarterly as part of the aforementioned report. Similarly, NOMS’ workforce statistics are not presented sufficiently clearly to enable us quickly to grasp the staffing situation. Accordingly, we would like regularly to receive, in addition to the Safety in Custody statistics: Indicators of disorder: Incidents involving the National Tactical Response Group, deployment of Tornado and the opening of Gold Command Incidents per month, including the reason for the action taken in each case; Staffing: the net gain in operational staff; the number of staff vacancies against benchmark levels; the average length of service and level of training of serving and leaving prison officers; fuller indicators of turnover and retention, including reasons for dismissal or resignation; the number of prisons operating restricted regimes; and the number of staff on detached duty per month; NOMS’ performance ratings: quarterly ratings of performance of individual prisons; Activity: data on the average number of hours each day prisoners spend locked in their cells at each prison.15 |
The Government has agreed to provide most of this data biannually.16 It has done so, excepting indicators of disorder, in letters of February17 and March18 2017. |
|
|
Restorative justice |
We recommend that the Ministry continue to provide long-term funding for restorative justice to Police and Crime Commissioners, but this money should remain part of a wider pot of funding for victims’ services to provide PCCs with the flexibility to meet local needs.19 |
The Government accepted this recommendation.20 |
|
The Ministry should consider if there are tensions between the aims of the Action Plan and wider criminal justice policy, particularly in relation to any tension between provision of pre-sentence restorative justice and the requirements of Better Case Management.21 |
The Government said it “will work … to identify and address any tensions”.22 |
|
|
We recommend that it be reaffirmed that “Level One” restorative justice is not appropriate for cases of domestic abuse and the Ministry of Justice work with police forces to ensure officers have proper guidance to avoid using restorative justice in inappropriate circumstances.23 |
The Government “agrees that police use of level one restorative justice is inappropriate for offences involving intimate partner domestic abuse”.24 |
|
|
The role of the magistracy |
We recommend that full access to physical courts, including alternative venues, be maintained for the time being until facilities such as video links are fully operational. We also recommend that provision be made for upgrading inadequate video links and internet connections for courts with insufficient bandwidth.25 |
Though the Government has not explicitly committed to maintaining full access, it has not proposed to abrogate it. It is upgrading some communications equipment.26 |
|
The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system |
The current conditions in the custodial estate meant that opportunities are being missed to seek to repair the harm that young adults are likely to have experienced in their lives with the risk of hard-wiring challenging behaviours as full brain development is achieved. Imprisonment within unsafe conditions and without purpose is likely to compound their involvement in the system and at worst contribute to violence and further self-inflicted deaths. It is well-evidenced in Lord Harris’s review that policies and practices to safeguard young adult prisoners are under-resourced and hence inoperable. The MoJ and NOMS should either act urgently to recruit and retain more prison officers or the Government should seek to adjust the current sentencing framework to reduce the population to manageable levels by shifting to alternative community-based means effectively to promote public safety.27 |
The Government’s White Paper, Prison Safety and Reform, announced plans to increase the number of prison officers by 2,500 by the end of 2018,28 and for new strategies to be designed to retain staff.29 This fulfils the Committee’s recommendation of action, though the results are pending. |
Table 2: Recommendations accepted, but not yet implemented
|
Report |
Recommendation |
Notes |
|
Courts and tribunals fees |
We recommend that the Government review the impact of the April 2015 increase in fees for money claims on the international competitiveness of London as a litigation centre when sufficient time has elapsed, possibly 2 or 3 years, to enable that impact to be assessed. The Government should not resurrect its proposal to double the £10,000 cap, or remove it altogether, unless such a review has been undertaken.30 |
The Government has agreed not to increase the £10,000 cap without further assessment of the impact of fee increases,31 which it has not yet had time to complete. |
|
Restorative justice |
We recommend that publicly-funded bodies should be required to demonstrate compliance with standards comparable to those Restorative Services Quality Mark (RSQM). We also recommend that NOMS review its service specifications against the RSQM.32 |
The Government has agreed to consider the Committee’s recommendation in respect of NOMS’ (now HMPPS’) service standards,33 but has not yet announced any plans here or for other publicly-funded bodies. |
|
We recommend the Ministry of Justice, with the Restorative Justice Council, publish and promote clear guidance for commissioners of restorative justice services of what constitutes a successful restorative justice scheme, including measurements relating to offenders and victims such as victim satisfaction.34 |
The Government “accepts that more needs to be done in this area”35 but has not yet published plans for appropriate action it will take. |
|
|
The role of the magistracy |
We note that Lord Justice Fulford is considering the possibility of additional guidance for justices’ clerks on the allocation of cases in magistrates’ courts, a development that we would welcome. We recommend that this take the form of an amended version of the protocol to support judicial deployment in the magistrates’ court. We further recommend that consideration be given to allowing magistrates to sit without legal advisers when sitting with a District Judge.36 |
The Government has agreed to consider allowing magistrates to sit without legal advisers when sitting with a District Judge,37 and Lord Justice Fulford is considering reviewing the Judicial Deployment Protocol in the magistrates’ courts,38 but no amended version has yet been produced. |
|
We recognise the efficiency gains of the Single Justice Procedure, but we note concerns have been expressed about any potential extension of the procedure to additional cases. We welcome Lord Justice Fulford’s intention to issue a protocol setting out guidance for magistrates on when they should sit in open court, and recommend that these concerns be taken into account in the preparation of that protocol.39 |
Lord Justice Fulford “will seek feedback from magistrates on their experiences of the Single Justice Procedure”40 but the protocol has not yet been published. |
|
|
We recommend that the Judicial College, in consultation with others, undertake a comprehensive review of magistrates’ training needs with a view to developing a training programme that supports a modern magistracy, taking proper account of the investment of time required from those who organise and deliver training. The review should also consider the particular training needs of magistrates who put themselves forward for specialist roles in the Youth and Family Courts, as bench Chairs and to sit as panel chairs.41 |
The Judicial College “will review the induction course for magistrates”42 but has not yet done so. |
|
|
We recommend that the Ministry of Justice and the senior judiciary create a kitemark scheme that recognises and rewards employers who support the magistracy, thus encouraging other employers to do the same. We also recommend that the Ministry of Justice review the current Financial Loss Allowances for employed and self-employed magistrates, including consideration of whether rates might be increased in line with inflation.43 |
The Government has agreed to “consider carefully the case for the creation of a kitemark scheme”44 but has not yet moved to create it. It agreed to “undertake a full review of judicial expenses policy during 2017”;45 this has not yet been completed. |
|
|
We recommend the introduction of a more robust appraisal scheme for magistrates, which can identify inadequate performance and impose remedial measures to address it, including reviewing of the future of magistrates who have become insufficiently committed to their role. The appraisal scheme should be linked to a mandatory scheme for Continuing Professional Development, developed as part of a comprehensive review of magistrates’ training.46 |
The Government has accepted that the current appraisal scheme “needs to be more robust”47 but is yet to amend it. |
|
|
We further recommend that, in the context of the comprehensive review of magistrates’ training that we have proposed, consideration be given to additional training needs created by increasing reliance on new technology, including particular communication skills required when dealing with defendants, victims and witnesses by video link.48 |
The Government responses states that the Judicial College “is alert to the demands of technology” and will “continue to take this into account” with regard to training.49 As above, the requested review is yet to take place. |
|
|
We accept that there is support among some sections of the magistracy for a more extensive judicial role within civil and tribunal jurisdictions, but we consider that it would be advisable at present to focus career development and training resources on maintaining and developing magistrates’ core skills within the criminal and family courts. However, we recommend that the feasibility of suitably trained and experienced magistrates undertaking prison adjudications by video link, with the support of a legal adviser, be examined.50 |
The Government has committed itself to such an examination but is yet to complete it.51 |
|
|
We recommend that, as a matter of priority, the Ministry of Justice, together with the senior judiciary, consult widely on, then adopt, an over-arching strategy for the magistracy, to include workforce planning, consideration of the impact of court closures, wider promotion of the role—in particular to employers—and the shared role of the Ministry and the judiciary in ensuring the future of magistrates’ training. The strategy should also consider the potential for the role of magistrates to be expanded, in particular within any future proposals to develop problem-solving courts.52 |
The Ministry is “currently working on an overarching judicial strategy” of which the role of the magistracy is a “key component”.53 This has not yet been published. |
|
|
The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system |
There is sufficient flexibility within the community sentencing framework to enable developmentally appropriate practices to be adopted by probation services, underpinned by better assessment and incentives to develop and expand existing initiatives.54 |
The Government is “actively looking at how [it] can improve”55 community sentences and is currently “conducting a comprehensive review of the probation system”,56 though the response did not specifically address incentives. |
|
The potential of young adult courts are worth testing, particularly if they can be developed cost-neutrally using the expertise of youth sentencers. If the results of the pilots and welcome evaluation are positive in terms of young adults’ experiences and outcomes, the Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Chief Justice, and HMCTS should facilitate such initiatives being adopted more widely.57 |
The Government has agreed to “look at the results of the feasibility study funded by T2A” and may consider next steps.58 |
Table 3: Recommendations not accepted
|
Report |
Recommendation |
Notes |
|
Courts and tribunals fees |
We recommend that the Government publish forthwith the factual information which they have collated as part of their post-implementation review of employment tribunal fees. We further recommend that: the overall quantum of fees charged for bringing cases to employment tribunals should be substantially reduced; the binary Type A/type B distinction should be replaced: acceptable alternatives could be by a single fee; by a three-tier fee structure, as suggested by the Senior President of Tribunals; or by a level of fee set as a proportion of the amount claimed, with the fee waived if the amount claimed is below a determined level; disposable capital and monthly income thresholds for fee remission should be increased, and no more than one fee remission application should be required, covering both the issue fee and the prospective hearing fee and with the threshold for exemption calculated on the assumption that both fees will be paid; further special consideration should be given to the position of women alleging maternity or pregnancy discrimination, for whom, at the least, the time limit of three months for bringing a claim should be reviewed.59 |
In its initial Response the Government gave a holding reply.60 It gave a fuller response when it published the result of its review as part of a consultation on proposals for reform of employment tribunal fees, in February 2017. In that consultation it accepted that the monthly income threshold for fee remission should be increased,61 but did not accept the other parts of the Committee’s recommendation. |
|
We recommend that the increase in the divorce petition fee to £550 be rescinded.62 |
The Government rejected this recommendation.63 |
|
|
We can see distinct attractions in a system in which there is a graduated or sequential schedule of fee payments whenever there are substantial fees payable in total in respect of a case in the civil or family courts or tribunals, allied with a requirement for the respondent to pay a fee, but we do not feel that we have sufficient evidence to recommend adoption of such a system. We do however recommend that a pilot scheme take place to enable an evaluation to take place of such a system.64 |
The Government rejected the recommendation of a pilot scheme.65 |
|
|
The Law Society called for the Ministry to introduce a system for regular rerating of remission thresholds to take account of inflation, and to conduct a further review of the affordability of civil court fees and the remission system, considering means of simplification, for example through automatic remission for all basic rate taxpayers. We recommend that the Ministry adopt the Law Society’s suggestion as a matter of urgency.66 |
The Government rejected this recommendation.67 |
|
|
Restorative justice |
We recommend the Ministry works with Police and Crime Commissioners to publish information on how money is being spent to provide restorative justice on a yearly basis. The first such publication should be in the Ministry’s Action Plan progress report.68 |
Though the Government has agreed to consider this, the Committee’s recommendation was that it be implemented,69 on which the Government has made no commitment. |
|
In order to help promote the use of safe restorative justice in such cases, we recommend the Ministry of Justice work with the Restorative Justice Council to create and fund training and promote guidelines of best practice for facilitators in such cases.70 |
The Government has made no commitment to fund such training. |
|
|
We recommend that the Government continue to embed restorative justice in the youth justice system and in particular consider following the model of youth conferencing used in Northern Ireland.71 |
The Government made no commitment to further consider the model of youth conferencing used in Northern Ireland.72 |
|
|
We agree with the recommendations of Why me? and the Restorative Justice Council that the Ministry of Justice should produce and promote within the criminal justice system an information sharing template to speed up the agreement of data sharing protocols. We do not recommend legislation at this juncture to require data sharing, but this is an option which should not be excluded if non-legislative measures do not prove effective. The issue of data sharing is one which the Ministry should make specific reference to in its Action Plan progress report.73 |
The Government’s most recent Action Plan progress report makes specific reference to data sharing.74 However, it has not agreed to produce and promote an information sharing template. |
|
|
We recommend the Ministry, rather than engage in broad national awareness raising campaigns, should instead focus its resources on ensuring restorative justice is well understood by bodies within the criminal justice system who can then convey this information to victims. The Ministry should also provide support and funding to providers to enable local awareness campaigns.75 |
The Government has rejected direct funding for providers,76 and has not made any commitment to change its awareness raising strategy. |
|
|
We recommend a rigorous system be introduced to improve compliance with the police’s requirement to inform victims about restorative justice. For example, forms for victim impact statements could have a box which reads “I have had restorative justice and how I can take part explained to me by the officer.” Other criminal justice bodies also have a role to play in improving victim awareness of restorative justice.77 |
The Government has not offered systemic change and has rejected the suggestion of a box on victim impact statements.78 |
|
|
We recommend that the Ministry strengthen the entitlements of victims of adult offenders under the Victims’ Code so they are equal to that of victims of youth offenders.79 |
The Ministry has not strengthened these entitlements in response to the Committee’s report. |
|
|
The Ministry should consult Police and Crime Commissioners and other stakeholders to assess capacity within the system and whether it is feasible to provide an entitlement under the Code for victims to access restorative justice services, with a corresponding duty on PCCs to provide those services. Depending on the results of that assessment, it might be prudent to exclude certain categories of offences from that entitlement, with an intention to include them in due course.80 |
The Ministry has not pledged to conduct such a consultation. |
|
|
The Ministry should, in its consultation on the Victims’ Law, seek views on a legislative right to restorative justice and how such a right would be enforced. Our view is that the Victims’ Law should include a provision for victims to have a legislative right to access restorative justice services but this should not come into force immediately. Instead it should be a Commencement Order, which should be brought by a Minister only once he or she has demonstrated to Parliament that the system has sufficient capacity to provide restorative justice services to all victims.81 |
The Government has not committed to this, and no consultation on the Victims’ Law is yet published. |
|
|
We recommend that the Ministry of Justice, when publishing its Action Plan progress report, provide an explanation of how they envisage restorative justice taking place across the criminal justice system. This should include what the roles of different organisations are, how they interact with one another and what support the Ministry of Justice will provide them. Clarity is particularly important in relation to probation services.82 |
These explanations were not provided in the most recent Action Plan progress report. |
|
|
The role of the magistracy |
We recommend that magistrates be consulted as appropriate on any further changes to the criminal justice system on which their views are likely to assist policy development and/or which are likely to have an impact on their role—in particular changes to administrative support to the courts, whether in their own locality or more widely across the court system.83 |
The Government, while restating the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice’s statutory duty to inform magistrates and ascertain their views on matters affecting them, did not provide this specific commitment.84 |
|
We recommend that the Ministry of Justice commission qualitative research into relations between District Judges, magistrates and justices’ clerks in a sample of Local Justice Areas, with a view to understanding the source of potential tensions and identifying good practice.85 |
The Government has not agreed to commission such research. |
|
|
However, recognising that the Transforming Summary Justice initiative depends in part on effective case management of every contested case, we recommend that all magistrates who sit as panel chairs should be offered training to assist them in fulfilling this role as effectively as possible.86 |
The Government has not agreed to offer this training to all panel chairs. |
|
|
We urge the Ministry of Justice, in consultation with the senior judiciary, to undertake a workforce planning exercise for the magistracy at the earliest possible opportunity, taking into account the high proportion of serving magistrates who are expected to retire over the next five to ten years. We also recommend that recruitment be undertaken on a continuous basis, so that approved applicants are available to fill vacancies in their area, or in adjacent areas, as soon as they occur.87 |
The Government has not agreed to undertake this workforce planning exercise. |
|
|
We recommend that the Ministry of Justice and the senior judiciary devise a strategy containing the following steps as a matter of priority to increase the diversity of applicants and recruits for the magistracy: Adopting a wider and more proactive advertising strategy for potential applicants, seeking in particular to attract magistrates from less conventional backgrounds; Streamlining the recruitment process, so that applications are processed within six months; Introducing a scheme similar to the ‘two ticks’ model to encourage disabled applicants, and working with the HMCTS to ensure that reasonable adjustments can be made where required; Providing additional funding for Magistrates in the Community, together with active promotion of the scheme to potential corporate sponsors; Considering the introduction of the ‘equal merit’ provisions for recruitment to the magistracy for the protected characteristics of race, disability and age.88 |
The Government has not agreed to devise such a strategy. |
|
|
We further recommend that the HMCTS encourage court managers, when resources permit, to consider the potential for increasing out-of-hours court sittings in order to maximise sitting opportunities for magistrates who are employed.89 |
The Government “believe that there could be merit in organising sittings outside of normal court operating hours” and “will conduct further analysis” of this,90 but did not agree or take action to encourage court managers to consider doing so. |
|
|
We recommend that the Judicial College be provided with more funding to support magistrates’ training and that a more realistic view be taken of the ability of HMCTS staff, in particular legal advisers, to assist with training given the current pressures on their time.91 |
The Government has not agreed to provide this funding. |
|
|
As part of the comprehensive review of magistrates’ training needs, we recommend that a balance be maintained between different ways of learning, recognising that online training, in spite of its convenience and cost-effectiveness, cannot provide the quality of engagement and interaction provided in face-to-face settings. We further recommend that a reasonable proportion of face-to-face training be offered at times that are convenient to employed magistrates and those with other weekday commitments.92 |
The Government did not make this commitment. |
|
|
In determining the location of alternative venues, we recommend that the Ministry ensure that at least 90% of magistrates’ court users can reach the nearest venue by public transport within one hour.93 |
The Government did not accept this recommendation. |
|
|
Use of alternative venues has assumed a key role in the Ministry’s court estate strategy, so it is regrettable that inadequate forethought has been given to the security implications of holding court sessions in buildings that are not equipped with a secure dock. We recommend that this matter be given urgent consideration, in consultation with magistrates, District Judges and court staff, to identify low-cost practical solutions to potential security risks.94 |
The Government did not agree to give this matter urgent consideration. |
|
|
We support increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers to 12 months’ custody, by commencing section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and we recommend that the Ministry of Justice provide a timetable for implementation. We recommend that the Sentencing Council’s new Allocation Guideline be given time to bed down and the Council be given an opportunity to review its impact on the allocation of cases to the magistrates’ courts. We further recommend that the Ministry of Justice publish any modelling of the potential impact on the prison population of extending magistrates’ sentencing powers.95 |
The Government has not increased magistrates’ sentencing powers or provided a timetable for doing so, but is keeping the case for doing so “under review”;96 it has agreed to publish “any modelling as appropriate” should it do so.97 It agrees that the Allocation Guideline should be given time to bed down.98 |
|
|
The evidence we have received suggests that many magistrates are eager to adopt problem-solving approaches when dealing with offenders sentenced to community penalties. We are sympathetic to this idea. Regardless of the Government’s future policy direction on dedicated problem-solving courts, we recommend that legal restrictions be lifted so that suitably trained and experienced magistrates can supervise community orders in all courts, provided that consistent sitting can be arranged.99 |
The Government did not agree to lift these legal restrictions. |
|
|
We do not yet know if the Government will decide to develop a strategy for piloting problem-solving courts. If they do so, we conclude that magistrates will play a central role in ensuring the strategy is successful. In these circumstances, we recommend that magistrates be fully consulted on the approach that is taken.100 |
While welcoming the interest of the magistracy in problem solving courts,101 the Government has not specifically addressed this recommendation. |
|
|
We also recommend that the role of magistrates serving on Out of Court Disposal scrutiny panels be made more consistent across the country by means of additional guidance.102 |
The Government is considering this recommendation but has not committed to adopting it. |
|
|
The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system103 |
Both age and maturity should be taken into significantly greater account within the criminal justice system. The rationale of the system for young adults should presume that up to the age of 25 young adults are typically still maturing. A developmental approach should be taken that recognises that how they perceive, process and respond to situations is a function of their developmental stage and other factors affecting their maturity, and secondarily their culture and life experience. Navigating the system is particularly challenging for those with neuro-disabilities, neuro-developmental disorders, mental disorders and learning and communication needs, many of which co-exist and compound each other, and which are exacerbated by the trauma that many young adults have recently experienced. There must be a step change in policy and practice to recognise that, while most young adults involved in crime want to change, their distinct developmental status and neurological impairments impact on their experience of the system and their capacity to desist from crime. Guidance alone will not provide this.104 |
The Government rejected the Committee’s central recommendation of a specific strategy for young adults in the criminal justice system:105 this limits the extent to which this recommendation, or those that flow from it, can be considered as accepted. The Government did not commit to taking both age and maturity into significantly greater account within the criminal justice system. |
|
The strategic approach to young adults should be founded on the clear philosophy that the system should seek to acknowledge explicitly their developmental status, focus on young adults’ strengths, build their resilience and recognise unapologetically the degree of overlap between their status as victims and offenders. A common understanding of maturity should be devised by the Government which recognises typical and atypical maturation amongst young adults and is applied across the criminal justice system. Understanding of brain development, neuro-disabilities and trauma-informed approaches should be mandatory within basic prison and probation officer training. Both these elements would create cultural change in the treatment of this cohort by fostering a stronger understanding amongst all criminal justice professionals of the factors that bring young adults into the system and those which influence their ability to change their behaviour, which is not just about punishment and managing risk.106 |
As above, the Government has rejected the recommendation of a strategy. It pledged to make a new maturity screening tool and resource pack available in 2017,107 but this does not entail that it is devising a common understanding of maturation. The Government has not agreed to make the recommended changes to basic prison and probation officer training. |
|
|
The strategy must also address the current unacceptable situation that the prevalence amongst prisoners and those supervised by the probation service of a range of disabilities, disorders, cognitive difficulties, and forms of emotional trauma are both unknown and largely unaddressed, affecting their behaviour and prospects of rehabilitation. Most young adults in the criminal justice system will have had their needs assessed in the youth justice system. For those that have not, or for whom there are gaps, there should be a policy of universal screening by prisons and probation services for mental health needs, neuro-developmental disorders, maturity and neuro-psychological impairment, using specified tools developed by NOMS with the support of the Ministry of Justice. This will enable suspected need to be identified consistently and facilitate expert testing and/or responsive individualised support as well as providing evidence of collective levels of need to support commissioning and co-commissioning of specialist health, education, training and other services for young adult offenders.108 |
As above, the Government has rejected the recommendation of a strategy. It has not agreed to universal screening by prisons and probation services for mental health needs, neuro-developmental disorders, maturity, or neuro-psychological impairment. |
|
|
A specialised approach should be taken to staffing prison and probation services work with young adults, underpinned by more in-depth training. This would enable stronger expertise to be developed effectively to address the behaviours typical of lack of emotional maturity, which includes impulsive, ill-considered actions and non-consequential decision making. Such an approach is likely to be less costly and more effective than widespread in-depth training that would be required for the necessary cultural change to occur amongst all criminal justice professionals who come into contact with young adults. The need to foster desistance must be addressed in the Ministry’s forthcoming prison safety and reform plan which should include as part of a strategy for the management of young adults a commitment to ensuring that prison and probation caseloads for this group are sufficiently small to allow meaningful trusting relationships to be developed to facilitate safeguarding and rehabilitation.109 |
As above, the Government has rejected the recommendation of a strategy. Though this report was referred to in the Government’s White Paper, Prison safety and Reform,110 that document did not include a commitment regarding prison and probation caseloads for young adults. Furthermore, the Government has not agreed to take a specialised approach to staffing as recommended. |
|
|
We are encouraged by the Secretary of State’s emphasis on MoJ policy and practices taking an evidence-based approach. We do not accept the Government’s argument that the proportion of young adults in prison and probation caseloads precludes them from developing a distinct approach and believe that the evidence provides a compelling case for change. Adopting a distinct approach towards young adults is likely to result in improvements in the ways in which they are managed and supported in the criminal justice system which would improve outcomes and reduce costs. The MoJ must act swiftly to minimise the risk that in the context of shrinking budgets young adults will become less of a priority, particularly as there are not currently incentives for criminal justice services to invest in practices which may result in savings to other departments’ and agencies’ budgets rather than their own.111 |
The Government has not agreed to act swiftly regarding investment incentives for criminal justice services. |
|
|
Reforms to governor autonomy and the delivery of probation services should not release the MoJ and NOMS from responsibility for stimulating centrally developments in potentially effective practice, expanding the availability of promising programmes, and of robustly evaluating them. A strategic approach should be adopted to collating and analysing existing data, developing the evidence base, identifying gaps in knowledge about how best to treat young adults, providing incentives to governors and probation services for devising and testing new approaches, and disseminating good practice. The MoJ should examine whether a case can be made for investment to facilitate this through the £1.3bn estate modernisation budget, including through the creation of an equivalent of a pupil premium, both for prisons and for CRCs, in recognition of the behavioural challenges young adults pose, the opportunity to repair neurological impairments while their brains are still developing, and their need for more intensive support.112 |
The Government response provides an account of its current approach to building and using evidence,113 but does not agree to adopt the strategic approach outlined. It did not respond to the recommendation regarding investment from the estate modernisation budget. |
|
|
Cross-government recognition must be given to the need to promote desistance among those involved in the criminal justice system by offering the possibility of extending statutory support provided by a range of agencies to under 18s to up to 25 year olds, including through legislative change if necessary. Young adults are treated distinctly by a range of other Government departments, including some which preside over dedicated policies which can hinder the chances of young adults who do not have support networks from desisting from crime. If young adults are to be given the best opportunities to become law-abiding there is a need for a coherent cross-departmental approach that recognises this and seeks to remove structural barriers to gaining sustainable employment, affordable accommodation and developmentally appropriate mental health services, for example, the lower minimum wage and housing and employment benefit entitlements.114 |
The Government has not responded specifically to this recommendation. |
|
|
Legislative provision to recognise the developmental status of young adults may be necessary both to demonstrate political courage in prioritising a better and more consistent approach to the treatment of young adults who offend and to provide a statutory underpinning to facilitate the shift required within the range of cross-government agencies that support young adults. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the resource implications and re-structuring services might be costly to the public purse at least in the short-term, although we believe the cost-benefits are likely to make this worthwhile.115 |
The Government has rejected this recommendation.116 |
|
|
Enabling young adults to form non-criminal identities following their involvement in the criminal justice system will require a change in the treatment of their criminal records. We support the Government initiative on banning the box—removing the requirement to disclose criminal convictions in application forms—and hope that it remains an imperative under the new Prime Minister, but reforms may need to go further, including legislative change for young adults to expunge records, incentives for employers to employ ex-offenders, and deferred prosecutions. We will consider this fully in our inquiry on criminal records.117 |
The Government noted our uncompleted inquiry, Disclosure of youth criminal records,118 to which it has given evidence.119 It has not yet agreed to a change in the treatment of youth criminal records. |
|
|
We note that the inclusion of maturity as part of a mitigating factor may have lessened the likelihood of age being taken into account in the sentencing of young adults. The Sentencing Council should conduct further research on the impact of this factor in sentencing decisions for 18 to 25 year olds. We would encourage the Director of Public Prosecutions to evaluate the impact of the inclusion of age and maturity in the Code for Crown Prosecutors to satisfy herself that its use reflects properly the maturity of young adult suspects, which may be hidden.120 |
As the Government observed, it cannot commit the Sentencing Council to action,121 and we have had no indication from the Council that it intends to carry out this research. The Crown Prosecution Service has agreed to “consider whether specific investigation can be made in relation to prosecutors’ consideration of age and maturity when charging and reviewing cases”,122 but not yet to carry out such investigation. |
|
|
Developing appropriate responses to young adults in the custodial estate is complicated by the existing legislative position for detention in a young offender institution for 18 to 20 year olds. The simplest resolution to this is to extend in the forthcoming reform bill the sentence up to the age of 25 and maintain dual categorisation in those institutions that have already been designated as such. The YOI element of the sentence must be given real meaning through the adoption of a strategic approach to the placement of young adults in appropriate accommodation according to their needs, the options for which are currently unduly narrow, and the development of new initiatives which are more appropriate to their needs. Before this can happen it is imperative that the inexcusable gaps in the research evidence regarding the best strategies for holding young adults in prisons are urgently addressed. This will necessitate the Ministry of Justice, NOMS and prison governors finding means of testing empirically various models of holding young adults, including an examination of the costs and benefits. This should include small dedicated units within prisons holding older adults; a small number of dedicated institutions; piloting of specialist dedicated officers with smaller caseloads, and enhanced provision of therapeutic support. Where young adults are held in mixed institutions there should be a recognised cap on numbers and benchmarking levels should reflect the need for better ratios of staffing.123 |
The Government has rejected the ‘simplest resolution’ of extending the statutory upper age limit to 25.124 It has not specifically responded to recommendations on dedicated units, institutions and officers, or on a cap on young adult numbers mixed institutions. The Government “will be gathering information from a number of sources regarding the effectiveness of the DYOI sentence, and holding younger and older adults in mixed institutions”,125 but has not committed to testing empirically various models as recommended. |
|
|
Whole prison approaches should be developed to reduce victimisation and bullying in prisons, within wider strategies on managing violence, to focus on minimising harmful behaviour and addressing its underlying causes through the widespread use of restorative justice and trauma-informed approaches. The IEP scheme should be replaced with a more sophisticated and flexible system of reward and incentives to encourage positive behaviour. Mechanisms should be found to expand within prisons existing promising programmes and focus violence reduction efforts on assessing needs, dealing with trauma and building life skills and resilience, with the provision of specialist support being made available for prisoners with unresolved and/or recent experiences of trauma, loss, abuse and bereavement. We welcome the NICE guidelines specifically for management of neuro-disabilities including brain injury in criminal justice system. The MoJ and NOMS should work with health services to incentivise an expansion of provision to address neuro-disabilities, mental ill health, and learning and communication needs based on a systematic assessment of need.126 |
The Government has not responded specifically regarding whole prison approaches, replacing the IEP scheme, or work with health services. Regarding programmes, it notes, for example, that it is “currently collating data for a future evaluation of the [previously piloted] ‘Identity Matters’ programme for young adults”.127 |
Table references
1 Justice Committee, Second Report of Session 2015–16, Criminal courts charge, HC 586, para 38
2 Justice Committee, Second Special Report of Session 2015–16, Criminal courts charge: Government Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2015–16, HC 667
3 Justice Committee, Second Report of Session 2015–16, Criminal courts charge, HC 586, para 39
4 Justice Committee, Third Report of Session 2015–16, Appointment of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and HM Chief Inspector of Probation, HC 624, para 32
5 Oral evidence taken by the Justice Committee on 5 July 2016, HC 415, Q69
6 HM Inspectorate of Probation, HM Inspectorate of Probation Corporate Plan 2016–19, August 2016
7 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2015–16, Criminal justice inspectorates, HC 724, para 19
8 Justice Committee, Third Special Report of Session 2015–16, Criminal justice inspectorates: Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2015–16, HC 1000, Appendix 1: Letter from Rt Hon Michael Gove MP
9 Richard Heaton CB, Letter dated 16 November 2016 regarding the Ministry of Justice’s Annual Report and Accounts 2015–16, p1
10 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2015–16, Criminal justice inspectorates, HC 724, para 19
11 Richard Heaton CB, Letter dated 16 November 2016 regarding the Ministry of Justice’s Annual Report and Accounts 2015–16, p1
12 Justice Committee, Third Special Report of Session 2015–16, Criminal justice inspectorates: Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2015–16, HC 1000, Appendix 1: Letter from Rt Hon Michael Gove MP and Appendix 2: Letter from Rt Hon Jeremy Wright QC MP
13 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2015–16, Prison safety, HC 625, para 42
14 Ministry of Justice, Prison Safety and Reform, Cm 9350, November 2016
15 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2015–16, Prison safety, HC 625, para 43
16 Justice Committee, First Special Report of Session 2016–17, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2015–16: Prison safety, HC 647, Appendix: Government Response, p4
17 Sam Gyimah MP, Letter dated 28 February 2017 regarding prison safety and reform
18 Sam Gyimah MP, Letter dated 28 March 2017 regarding prison safety and reform
19 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2016–17, Restorative justice, HC 164, para 26
20 Ministry of Justice, Government response to the Justice Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2016–17: Restorative Justice, Cm 9343, November 2016, p2
21 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2016–17, Restorative justice, HC 164, para 28
22 Ministry of Justice, Government response to the Justice Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2016–17: Restorative Justice, Cm 9343, November 2016, p3
23 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2016–17, Restorative justice, HC 164, para 34
24 Ministry of Justice, Government response to the Justice Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2016–17: Restorative Justice, Cm 9343, November 2016, p3
25 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 98
26 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2016–17: The Role of the Magistracy, Cm 9368, December 2016, para 68
27 Justice Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2016–17, The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, HC 169, para 153
28 Ministry of Justice, Prison Safety and Reform, Cm 9350, November 2016, para 48
29 ibid, para 104
30 Justice Committee, Second Report of Session 2016–17, Courts and tribunals fees, HC 167, para 85
31 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Second Report of Session 2016–17: Courts and tribunals fees, Cm 9300, November 2016, p6
32 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2016–17, Restorative justice, HC 164, para 54
33 Ministry of Justice, Government response to the Justice Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2016–17: Restorative Justice, Cm 9343, November 2016, p6
34 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2016–17, Restorative justice, HC 164, para 56
35 Ministry of Justice, Government response to the Justice Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2016–17: Restorative Justice, Cm 9343, November 2016, p6
36 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 20
37 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2016–17: The Role of the Magistracy, Cm 9368, December 2016, para 13
38 ibid, para 12
39 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 26
40 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2016–17: The Role of the Magistracy, Cm 9368, December 2016, para 14
41 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 74
42 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2016–17: The Role of the Magistracy, Cm 9368, December 2016, para 48
43 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 57
44 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2016–17: The Role of the Magistracy, Cm 9368, December 2016, para 36
45 ibid, para 38
46 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 62
47 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2016–7: The Role of the Magistracy, Cm 9368, December 2016, para 57
48 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 99
49 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2016–17: The Role of the Magistracy, Cm 9368, December 2016, para 53
50 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 121
51 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2016–7: The Role of the Magistracy, Cm 9368, December 2016, para 81
52 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 127
53 Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, Correspondence dated 17 February 2017 regarding the role of the magistracy, p3
54 Justice Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2016–17, The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, HC 169, para 151
55 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2016–17: The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, Cm 9388, January 2017, para 60
56 ibid, para 61
57 Justice Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2016–17, The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, HC 169, para 152
58 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2016–17: The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, Cm 9388, January 2017, para 66
59 Justice Committee, Second Report of Session 2016–17, Courts and tribunals fees, HC 167, para 79
60 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Second Report of Session 2016–17: Courts and tribunals fees, Cm 9300, November 2016, p5
61 Ministry of Justice and Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Reforming the Employment Tribunal System: Government response, February 2017, para 9
62 Justice Committee, Second Report of Session 2016–17, Courts and tribunals fees, HC 167, para 89
63 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Second Report of Session 2016–17: Courts and tribunals fees, Cm 9300, November 2016, p7
64 Justice Committee, Second Report of Session 2016–17, Courts and tribunals fees, HC 167, para 95
65 ibid, p10
66 ibid, para 97
67 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Second Report of Session 2016–17: Courts and tribunals fees, Cm 9300, November 2016, p11
68 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2016–17, Restorative justice, HC 164, para 24
69 Ministry of Justice, Government response to the Justice Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2016–17: Restorative Justice, Cm 9343, November 2016, p2
70 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2016–17, Restorative justice, HC 164, para 36
71 ibid, para 40
72 Ministry of Justice, Government response to the Justice Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2016–17: Restorative Justice, Cm 9343, November 2016, p7
73 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2016–17, Restorative justice, HC 164, para 44
74 Ministry of Justice, Restorative Justice Action Plan for the Criminal Justice System for the period to March 2018, February 2017, p3
75 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2016–17, Restorative justice, HC 164, para 50
76 Ministry of Justice, Government response to the Justice Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2016–17: Restorative Justice, Cm 9343, November 2016, p5
77 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2016–17, Restorative justice, HC 164, para 51
78 Ministry of Justice, Government response to the Justice Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2016–17: Restorative Justice, Cm 9343, November 2016, p6
79 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2016–17, Restorative justice, HC 164, para 68
80 ibid, para 72
81 ibid, para 73
82 ibid, para 66
83 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 11
84 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2016–7: The Role of the Magistracy, Cm 9368, December 2016, para 7
85 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 19
86 ibid, para 31
87 ibid, para 39
88 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 50
89 ibid, para 58
90 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2016–7: The Role of the Magistracy, Cm 9368, December 2016, paras 39–40
91 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 69
92 ibid, para 74
93 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 93
94 ibid, para 94
95 ibid, para 105
96 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2016–7: The Role of the Magistracy, Cm 9368, December 2016, para 72
97 ibid, para 75
98 ibid, para 74
99 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 113
100 ibid, para 114
101 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2016–7: The Role of the Magistracy, Cm 9368, December 2016, para 80
102 Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, The role of the magistracy, HC 165, para 122
103 It should be noted that the Government Response to this report outlines Government policy without systematically addressing the Committee’s specific recommendations; as such, it is unclear in places whether the Government has responded to those recommendations, and if so, how.
104 Justice Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2016–17, The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, HC 169, para 141
105 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2016–17: The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, Cm 9388, January 2017, para 10
106 ibid, para 142
107 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2016–17: The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, Cm 9388, January 2017, para 41
108 Justice Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2016–17, The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, HC 169, para 143
109 ibid, para 144
110 Ministry of Justice, Prison Safety and Reform, Cm 9350, November 2016
111 Justice Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2016–17, The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, HC 169, para 145
112 ibid, para 146
113 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2016–17: The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, Cm 9388, January 2017, paras 25–31
114 Justice Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2016–17, The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, HC 169, para 147
115 ibid, para 148
116 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2016–17: The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, Cm 9388, January 2017, para 16
117 Justice Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2016–17, The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, HC 169, para 149
118 ibid, para 73
119 Oral evidence taken by the Justice Committee on 15 March 2017, HC 751; Ministry of Justice and Home Office (DYC0021), HC 751
120 Justice Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2016–17, The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, HC 169, para 150
121 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2016–17: The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, Cm 9388, January 2017, para 72
122 ibid, para 69
123 Justice Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2016–17, The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, HC 169, para 154
124 ibid, para 17
125 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2016–17: The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, Cm 9388, January 2017, para 24
126 ibid, para 155
127 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2016–17: The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, Cm 9388, January 2017, para 30
26 April 2017